Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Why (Some) Liberals Hate Sarah Palin

Dear Mike in Maryland. Right you are that governm...

2009-07-16T14:37:33.354-04:00

Dear Mike in Maryland.

Right you are that government can be said to have some expenditures it need to do once in a while.

Too bad the Stimulus is all about ACORN sprouts and pure social services glop that for the most part have little or nothing to do with infrastructure (shovels and bridges) or exploration. And as we see, the whole stem cell stuff turned out to be a lie about "not being funded"

I'd love to be "not funded or allowed"

I'd be 300 MILLION to the good about now. Even if nothing, like stem cells of the embyonic type, was produced.

Beyond this, you need to check out the work of esteemed demographer Phillip Longman, who's pointed out that when it comes to sheer numbers and birthrates, you're more likely to have see the future belong to the larger families of Utah and SC than the Vermont hippy-dippy hangouts and Manhatten elites dining at Elaines.

The world of tomorrow is probably going to be a little more conservative.

Ideology follows demographic trends as much as anything else, if not more.

And the future belongs to the fecund.

As a Palin supporter, I'm more than happy to point this out (in addition to the reasonable notion that most readers here have probably never heard of the word "fecund") even if your side is in the catbird seat at the momement. But the change of calanders brings more than a new nail up on the kitchen wall.

I am also more than happy to point out that from Sowell all the way back to Burke, conservative writers have whipped the pants off the Left's most stretched, whining highbrows and cocktail yappers.

As to malapropisms, it seems this inestimable Sotomayer has some remedial English lessons she could plunk down some money for, to shore up a few things here and there.

Today, the lefty blogs look about equally assclownish.

Enjoy the venom festival about Palin whilst you can, brother.

All things come to an end.

"More to the point, however, is that the phenomeno...

2009-07-15T22:30:32.039-04:00

"More to the point, however, is that the phenomenon of Sarah Palin, e.g. all the rallies at which people shouted that they wanted to kill Obama and other such things, genuinely scared me."

I would like to point out that there was only ONE allegation of someone shouting "Kill Him" at a Palin rally. This was supposedly heard by a single reporter in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Sarah Palin wasn't even on the stage; the crowd was being warmed up by a local politician.

Dozens of people--audience members, police, venue staff, other reporters--were interviewed by the Secret Service, and they found absolutely no confirmation that this event actually took place. They dismissed the charge as "unfounded."

The most likely explanation is that someone shouted "Tell him!" and that this was mis-heard by a single reporter. From that one minor event grew a mighty urban myth. Ignorant and paranoid liberals treat it as if she'd been wearing Klan robes on stage.

The whole lot of these comments sound like Republi...

2009-07-15T15:17:50.127-04:00

The whole lot of these comments sound like Republicans talking about Obama a couple of years ago.

Ahhh...sorry to burst your little wank fantasy, Ec...

2009-07-09T12:18:37.890-04:00

Ahhh...sorry to burst your little wank fantasy, Ecom, but the Supreme Court has already dealt with and dismissed the "Obama is a Kenyan, not a US citizen" nonsense..and unless you get a serious counterrevolution (or coup) and gain about 15 Senate and 130 House seats in the midterms, I fail to see how Obama's gonna get impeached.

And also....didn't you hear?? Biden's only a Veep placeholder for 2012, when he resigns from political office to allow his son Bo to take over his old US Senate seat....and allows Hillary Clinton to take over the VP slot.

In other words...at even the best of right-wingnut scenarios, you get Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton in 2012. Yeah, Sarah WHO?!?!?

Oh, and about those North Korean missiles: you do know that if we did decide to invade that country, it would allow China to fire their own stash of nukes at us...right??? But, I guess, so much quicker to bring on the Rapture, ehhh???

Wingnutter. Gotta love 'em.

Anthony

When they impeach Obama for high treason and not b...

2009-07-09T11:03:58.974-04:00

When they impeach Obama for high treason and not being a natural born USA citizen as he was born in Kenya... not Hawaii... American will be faced with Joe wacked out Biden being President. He drops out due to mental breakdown we then get Nancy Pelosi in the Oval Office.

ALL would prefer Sarah over those 2

Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. P...

2009-07-09T10:54:28.024-04:00

Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.

She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.

Liberal: Ha, ha ... Sarah who? She's over, she's toast, a future Trivial Pursuit answer, nothing more.

Normal person: Whatever. How about the North Korean missiles?

Liberal: Can you believe she just resigned the governorship like that? What a quitter!

Great spot on read on why Libs just can't forget Sarah Palin.. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32635&page=93&viewID=1017526

Palin is now in a good position to pursue national...

2009-07-09T10:47:14.294-04:00

Palin is now in a good position to pursue national ambitions. The "mainstream" potential republican candidates are deathly afraid of the populist sentiment she will attract in a 2012 candidacy which is the reason they are now publicly downgrading her. She and Romney will be the candidates in 2012.

Palin's biggest critics will ultimately be her own party. Try and imagine her making a run for president and having to debate other repubs who will not hesitate to bring up what a quitter she is.
Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.

She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.

Bug can claim "victory," but that doesn't mean it ...

2009-07-08T13:41:36.642-04:00

Bug can claim "victory," but that doesn't mean it exists for Bug, who has been shown to be wrong and unwilling to admit it so many times that it's usually best to believe the opposite. When I was mistaken on one item, I admitted it. Not so on the other side, whose biggest error is thinking that he or she is incapable of error, and so is consistently mistaken but incapable of recognizing it.

As for Palin, no one has yet explained where her majority will come from. It's not about prejudice. It's about her policies (which really have gone no further than "America!").

two words: ignorant. arrogant. it's a dangerous...

2009-07-07T13:38:52.880-04:00

two words:

ignorant.

arrogant.

it's a dangerous, scary combination.

I've never visited this site before, and while I t...

2009-07-07T04:45:59.398-04:00

I've never visited this site before, and while I think the stats/posts are great, the readers views on the Liberalism versus Conservatism debate are dangerously insular. Many of the greatest writers, especially in the 19th century were deeply devoted to conservative principles and ideals. Pick up Brothers Karamazov and if you pedantic-smarmy-liberals can get through the book and still claim that conservatism is only for dumb nutwings, I will lick your feet.

I guess I should complete my post from above: Lac...

2009-07-06T21:02:10.286-04:00

I guess I should complete my post from above:

Lack of the above just shows that you, as a representative of the GOOPers, is just blowing hot air in the hope that all that hot air will lift the party, not realizing it will not.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Lord Calvert, Thank you for addressing the portio...

2009-07-06T20:59:49.131-04:00

Lord Calvert,

Thank you for addressing the portion of my post about the short-term problem for the GOOPers.

Now please address the long-term problems the GOOPers will face if they don't change their lying ways, their adulation for big business ONLY, and the generation problem.

Also, please acknowledge that 'upstate New York' is not synonymous with the rest of America, or if it is (in your mind), exactly how it is.

Lack of the above just shows that you, as a representative

Mike in Maryland said - So go ahead and drive the ...

2009-07-06T19:59:21.274-04:00

Mike in Maryland said - So go ahead and drive the religious wackos out, and in the short term, it will benefit the Democratic Party.

Oh, I certainly agree that it will benefit the Dems in the short term, just like when they bolted the Dems in 1968 it benefited the Republicans in the short term. I'm concerned about the long term. If the GOP does not get rid of the religious wing of the party or at the very least remove their members from leadership positions within it, they're dead in the long term. They will be nothing more than a regional party with the same constituency as Wallace's AIP.

The short term price for jettisoning the Scudderites is one that the GOP is going to have to pay if they are to survive as a party. So far, they have been completely unwilling to do so. Perhaps after 2012 they will be more willing.

Lord Calvert, May I remind you that 'upstate New ...

2009-07-06T19:47:48.678-04:00

Lord Calvert,

May I remind you that 'upstate New York' is not the entire United States?

And also remember, if a lot of the religious wackos of the GOOPers in Missouri, Arkansas, or many of the southern states are driven out of the GOOPer party, either directly or indirectly, they can either go to a third party (which won't decrease the Democratic Party vote) or just sit at home (which won't increase the GOOPer vote), and thus the GOOPers will be worse off in a lot of those areas. Enough to more than off-set an increase in GOOPers from upstate New York sitting in Congress.

And don't forget, New York as a whole is losing representation, but the 'liberal' areas in downstate New York is increasing, and staying as liberal, or becoming even more so, than upstate New York. That means even more representation in downstate, less in upstate, New York.

Also remember that the younger generations are much less conservative than the older generations. The older you get, the greater probability of death, and so the more conservative older generations are dying off faster than the younger generations, even if there is no change in total population as a whole. And stats that I've seen says that upstate New York is older on average than downstate New York.

So go ahead and drive the religious wackos out, and in the short term, it will benefit the Democratic Party.

In the long term, unless the GOOPers begin to demonstrate that they can be an honest party, willing to listen to the opposition, sit down to discuss policy differences, and try to come to some agreement, but remain the party of "NO, NO, and HELL NO!", the GOOPers have lost their reason to be a political party.

It also would help the GOOPers to realize that science is not always against big business - think about it.

Just one example - the entire high tech and electronics industry was a result of the scientific discoveries (some of them of just basic research, not applied science) of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And most of that basic research of science was funded by government, whether in the US or in other countries, NOT by big business.

Atomic research?

The Internet? (An outgrowth of basic research into particle physics)

Space exploration and research?

Weather prediction?

All examples of government funding of scientific research that big business then reaped trillions of dollars in income as a result.

And don't forget that government funding allowed some innovations the private sector developed to be expanded to much greater influence.

Railroads?

Interstate highway system? (the original concept was developed in Germany and put in place by Hitler [the Autobahns])

Air transportation?

Mass communication (radio and television, for example)?

Any idea where all those would be without government funding and guidance?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear th...

2009-07-06T19:06:54.716-04:00

Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear that a woman may someday become president.

Methinks you are clueless. I would have had no problem with Hilary - I merely thought Obama was the better person for the job. I wasn't particularly fond of Granholm as Michigan governor, but that was due to the state's economy being in shambles, not because she's a woman.

The animosity we on the left have for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her multiple abuse-of-power scandals, her woeful ignorance (and pride in said ignorance), and her willingness to dismiss anyone who disagrees with her views as not part of "real America", whatever that is supposed to mean. Those are not characteristics of anyone I want in power, regardless of gender. Even Bush the Younger didn't combine all three of those at the start of his presidency (though by the end it could be argued).

Mike in Maryland said: You left out a couple of wo...

2009-07-06T18:16:02.052-04:00

Mike in Maryland said: You left out a couple of word, Lord Calvert. Where you state "such a split would gain them back", it should read "such a split would give them an opportunity to gain them back".

I think that in areas where the religious wing of the GOP has little power or appeal, they'd get that opportunity. The limited-government conservatives in this area (upstate New York) that were deliberately driven out of politics by their own party would most definitely take advantage of that: people like Jack Quinn, Bill Paxon (who left politics after his failed revolt to take the Speaker's chair from the religious-wing's Newt Gingrich) and Amo Houghton. While it is unlikely that those particular individuals would ever run again, they would certainly be involved in any traditionally-conservative revival in the GOP. Also, now that he's gone, they have the legacy of the late Jack Kemp to build upon.

If the GOP ditched the religious-wing of the Party, Upstate New York would once again turn solid red instead of having only two congressmen, one of whom (the 26th's Chris Lee) was elected by a slim margin against a political neophyte in a gerrymandered "safe district" for the Republicans.

Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear th...

2009-07-06T17:30:01.971-04:00

Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear that a woman may someday become president. Well, get used to the idea. You smacked Hillary around last year when it appeared she might make it but I think you may have met your match this time. You don't understand Sarah so you vilify her. I would suggest that you get out of your ivory tower and listen to what real people are saying about her. It may be in 2012 or 2016, but I feel very certain that Sarah Palin will make it in spite of your prejudice.

i think the bolded part you emphasized is right on...

2009-07-06T16:42:30.172-04:00

i think the bolded part you emphasized is right on. and i think it's also a big part behind dislike of G.W. bush.

Lord Calvert said... For the Republicans such a sp...

2009-07-06T16:10:22.976-04:00

Lord Calvert said...
For the Republicans such a split would gain them back the supporters they've lost in the rural Northeast, Midwest, Mountain West and Pacific Coast due to continuous use and abuse of religion in government by the Right.

You left out a couple of word, Lord Calvert. Where you state "such a split would gain them back", it should read "such a split would give them an opportunity to gain them back".

You see, a lot of the people who left the GOOPers finally caught on to the double talk of the GOOPers, and don't trust them anymore. They are also finding that many of the GOOPers are nothing but hypocrites.

And many of the people who left the GOOPers are finding that (unlike all the GOOPer talking points for the last 30+ years) the Democratic Party is NOT socialist, but is actually trying to find ways to help the American citizens who are not rich. It is NOT the party of 'spread the wealth' in the manner the GOOPers want everyone to think, but a party that is trying to help EVERYONE gain a sustainable and good economic future, along with a focus of keeping the government out of people's bedrooms.

The GOOPers won't automatically gain back everyone they've pushed out of the party. Many now realize that the GOOPers are not the party they claim to be, and any new re-invention of the GOOPers will have to demonstrate that they will actually be the party they say they will be.

Remember the old saying: Trust, once broken, is an extremely difficult thing to get back.

The GOOPers have broken the trust that many used to have in them. It will be extremely difficult for the GOOPers to get that trust back. And until they do (IF they do), the GOOPers will in inhabitants of the political wilderness.

And you forgot one other thing - many of the people under 35 never DID trust the GOOPers, but have greatly different social and ecological viewpoints than any reincarnation of the GOOPer party would have, so you never had them in the party to begin with, so you cannot 'win them back' as they never were a part of the GOOPer party to begin with. And the ones who DID leave the party in the last 30 years are getting older and starting to die off at faster and faster rates. Kind of hard to (legally) vote from the grave in election after election, isn't it?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

I don't hate Sarah Palin because she's a successfu...

2009-07-06T15:48:00.270-04:00

I don't hate Sarah Palin because she's a successful woman.

I hate Sarah Palin because she's a willful know-nothing who stands, in blissful ignorance, opposed to just about everything I hold to be true. A lot like that guy who used to be President before Obama.

I also hate the venality of the woman. The shopping spree on the GOP, while amusing and a better use of funds than actually campaigning for McCain, is indicative of something deeper in the woman... she is a drinker of other people's milkshakes. Given her ethical struggles in Alaska and on the campaign trail, I think she could make Cheney look positively squeaky clean, ethics wise.

@Bug - Speaking as a Goldwater-conservative, I agr...

2009-07-06T13:23:53.597-04:00

@Bug - Speaking as a Goldwater-conservative, I agree that an independent Palin candidacy would be an excellent idea...for the Republicans and the Democrats. It would finally allow the GOP to divest themselves of the hyper-religious Southern theocrats that have dominated the Party since the 80s and get back to their traditional limited-government roots.

For the Republicans such a split would gain them back the supporters they've lost in the rural Northeast, Midwest, Mountain West and Pacific Coast due to continuous use and abuse of religion in government by the Right. As it stands now, these voters have thrown in their lot with the Dems because they've become unwelcome in the modern GOP, being very uncomfortable with the GOP's current obsession with big-government. Divesting themselves of the religious conservatives on the extreme right would get the GOP the center back and make then competitive nationally again.

The benefit for the Democrats is that a split of the GOP into two parties would get them pluralities in many places, giving them rock-solid control of government until one of the two "conservative" parties becomes dominant or the Dems collapse under their own weight.

For many years the Republicans have needed to get rid of the religious wing of the Party as their politics no longer are complimentary to limited-government conservatism, however the GOP has been unable to do so because the organizational skills of the religious wing are so exceptional. As the election of 2008 clearly showed, they have outlived their usefulness as Republicans. An independent Palin candidacy would encourage and formalize the ideological split that already exists within the Republican Party. The GOP will be far healthier in the long term without the theocrats. It is long past time to let them go their own way.

"Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent pre...

2009-07-06T12:39:39.881-04:00

"Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent presidential candidate"

You know, for her and her agenda, that is an excellent idea. Obama has too much room for electoral error to lose in 2012, so it would be a great time for conservatives to cleanse their party of RINOs and start the process of stocking Congress with true conservatives.

It has the added bonus of exacting revenge on those in the McCain Camp who trashed her.

I would love to see her do this, after all she has had to put up with.

The citations were for the 8% figure, which you co...

2009-07-06T12:35:05.531-04:00

The citations were for the 8% figure, which you conceded. I did not provide them to vouch for anything else they contained. But if the promise was 8% and we are nearly at 10%, then it has failed so far.

"But it doesn't logically follow that things are still not better with the stimulus than they would have been without it"

That goes both ways. A lot of economists were predicting a self-reversal within 18 months of the start. Either way, a trillion in largely backloaded spending, mostly public works and a lot of pork and earmarks, is not a sound solution. If the GOP could get their act together on this they could take the House next fall, but somehow I don't think they will.

"You can't have it both ways, complaining about spending and then that it "failed" because it hasn't been spent"

Wrong, that would be the point, and would be a valid explanation for the > 8% issue, and why Obama has been a failure.

"I'm willing to agree to everything in the Leonhardt article if you are"

You requested a cite for the 8% claim and you got it. Red faced, you are now trying to move the goalposts. Not that I disagree with all of your statements, I'm just claiming VICTORY. You have been defeated by someone in Georgia no less who voted for BUSH two times. That must really stick in your craw.

Just when I thought I was out... Glad you're look...

2009-07-05T23:11:04.117-04:00

Just when I thought I was out...

Glad you're looking things up. I'll accept the 8% prediction. (Do you accept the 10 years to get new offshore oil drilling to market?)

But Bug, did you read the articles you cited?

Leonhardt says that while it's possible that the economy deteriorated because the stimulus failed, "The second answer is that the economy has deteriorated in spite of the stimulus. In other words, the patient is not as sick as he would have been without the medicine he received. But he is a lot sicker than doctors realized when they prescribed it...To me, the evidence is fairly compelling that the second answer is the right one." So I don't think this article makes your point, unless you're reading very selectively.

The second article notes that the package allocates spending over 18 months, and that we're only 120 days in. So isn't it early to tell whether the package has "failed" or not?

The third article similarly says that 100 days in, 6% of the funds have been spent. You can't have it both ways, complaining about spending and then that it "failed" because it hasn't been spent. (And even when all is said and done, it will be hard to assess the effects of the stimulus because we can't run the experiment over again, as Leonhardt points out. That doesn't mean it will have failed, or succeeded for that matter.)

The last one is a blog where the conclusion isn't related to the data. Yes, things are worse than anticipated. But it doesn't logically follow that things are still not better with the stimulus than they would have been without it, as Leonhardt explained above. Like I said, a logic course would come in handy.

I'm willing to agree to everything in the Leonhardt article if you are. I agree with Leonhardt that the economic models may be too optimistic and we should prepare for sober times ahead. But I also agree with his assessment that while it means that the economy is in worse shape than some people thought, it would be still worse without the stimulus. That's what his article says, at least.

Now, let's review the four sources that Bug uses t...

2009-07-05T23:03:05.027-04:00

Now, let's review the four sources that Bug uses to prove his point.

The first: from the NY Times, quoting stats from advisers who say that the stim probably won't be enough to overtake the grim economic conditions. Not an enlightening endorsement, but not quite a GOP talking point either.

Source link #2: A BusinessDay article featuring Joe Biden's ThisWeek interview where he admits that perhaps the Obama admin may have underestimated the depths of the recession. Been there, done that.

Then we go to Link #3: where the LA Times basically resets the same identical point that Link #1 did.

All this leads to the main punchline of Link #4, which is: a South Dakota wingnut blog that cites as support the likes of John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorialist (well known for their fair and balanced opinions, of cours); and whose linkage includes the likes of John Hindraker, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Renyolds.

Nice try again, Bug, but most of us can see through your game..or lack therof.

Anthony